Am I Wrong or Is Hunt Auctions Wrong?

[travrosty]

each time a ring is offered it should be clearly stated if the ring is salesman sample, front office, staff, coaches, players ring, A or B version.

i see so many auctions where the ring is offered and there is no indication if it is staff ring, player ring, a or b version. its crazy to see that because it takes so little effort to clearly list what type of ring it is.

[martindl]

I think all auction houses should go out of their way to inform and educate any potential bidder on items they have for sale. The front-office ring is substantially different than the ring given to the players and should be noted as such.

I don't collect rings and things, but I assume many that do often go for a non-player example to reduce their outlay. Someone buying this, thinking they're getting a representative example of the rings produced that year would be sorely miffed if they later found out they were different.

Michael, yours would be a lot nicer if it didn't have that green paint all over the side. You can't even see the name

[sports-rings]

Hunt's egregious mislabeling is worse than I thought.

I just learned that there is a "B" version of this ring, given to upper-level staff, who were not players.

This new insight happened as a ring was put on ebay this week that is truly a "B" version.

So the Hunt ring is now a "C" version ring. I feel sorry for the person who buys the ring and later on discovers that the ring is 2 steps down from a player's version.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

So, if someone like myself knows this is a "B" version ring, and the auction house is alerted to it, shouldn't they do the right thing (like other auction houses do) and update their listing?

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Hunt's egregious mislabeling is worse than I thought.

I just learned that there is a "B" version of this ring, given to upper-level staff, who were not players.

This new insight happened as a ring was put on ebay this week that is truly a "B" version.

So the Hunt ring is now a "C" version ring. I feel sorry for the person who buys the ring and later on discovers that the ring is 2 steps down from a player's version.

Can you also see though how applying labeling that you are not 100% sure is accurate can be problematic? Hunt went back and changed the description to read "front office" ring, but that wasn't enough for you. You "repeatedly continued to request" that, among other things, it be labeled as a "B" version of the ring. Only now you find out it's not actually a "B" version, so even if they had made the changes you asked for, would you be beating down the door again demanding that they further revise the description?

Sometimes there is such a thing as providing "too much information" if the added information in itself has the potential to be misleading. To me, it appears that David added only the information he could be 100% sure of ("front office" ring rather than player's ring), and leaves the rest of the research to the buyer. Sure, it would be nice if every auction house that lists a ring would lock down every bit of information about it and perfectly label and categorize it, but in a case like this where even the expert is continuing to find out new information about the item, can you really blame them for "playing it safe" with the item description?

Just my take on the overall situation, with me having near-zero knowledge of rings. I have though had plenty of experience with bidders irate over mistakes or minor discrepancies in descriptions (more minor than this), and can say with some confidence that being "right" is necessarily only part of how you approach situations like this. Both sides have to be willing to step back and evaluate the new or corrected information for what it is, and I find that "repeated requests," especially if they just repeat the same information, are more annoying than helpful and do nothing to promote an unbiased consideration of the facts at hand. If I remember correctly, didn't this same kind of badgering followed by public complaining get you banned from bidding with another major auction house? I'm not trying to take sides here, but you might take a step back and seriously consider your approach to these kinds of situations.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Sometimes there is such a thing as providing "too much information" if the added information in itself has the potential to be misleading.

For instance, I received a glove in the mail last week, from Hunts, that had been described as 14". The one I received was 12.5". If they had not given the size at all, I wouldn't have been surprised to receive a 12.5" glove, as I had googled the model and knew they should be 12.5".

Nakona Glove from Hunts

Hunts is great for deals, but I have to agree with the OP - their descriptions are sometimes lacking (or the opposite).

[sports-rings]

didn't this same kind of badgering followed by public complaining get you banned from bidding with another major auction house?

Some at net54baseball.com feel that being banned from an auction house is a badge of honor. Given the choice of exposing a problem, or hiding from an issue because of fear of being banned - I'll choose exposing the problem everytime. I was banned from tiny, renegade auctioneer Nate Sanders. I have not been banned or had issues with any other auction houses and continue to help most of them identify problems and issues. And compared to you, I have had zero conflicts with anyone on these boards.

You are correct, I had said this was a "B" ring and now it turns out to be a "C" ring. However, in my defense, all I had asked Hunt to do was state in their description that their ring was not the same size and weight and contained less diamonds than a player's ring. I stand by those facts and shame on Hunt for not budging on this matter.

[drc]

I worked for a non-sport auction house and the President said they wish to get the descriptions correct, in particular the conditions, as they don't like returns.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Some at net54baseball.com feel that being banned from an auction house is a badge of honor. Given the choice of exposing a problem, or hiding from an issue because of fear of being banned - I'll choose exposing the problem everytime. I was banned from tiny, renegade auctioneer Nate Sanders. I have not been banned or had issues with any other auction houses and continue to help most of them identify problems and issues. And compared to you, I have had zero conflicts with anyone on these boards.

I didn't mean to imply that you should not expose problems or hide for fear of being banned. You obviously know your stuff when it comes to rings, and I applaud your efforts to share that knowledge with collectors and auction houses alike. It just seems to me that a bit more tact would help the auction corrections to be implemented more willingly. You know, the whole "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down" approach.

And you're right, I had forgotten that the banning was by Nate Sanders. As you say, not as big a deal as I was (incorrectly) remembering.

Originally Posted by sports-rings

You are correct, I had said this was a "B" ring and now it turns out to be a "C" ring. However, in my defense, all I had asked Hunt to do was state in their description that their ring was not the same size and weight and contained less diamonds than a player's ring. I stand by those facts and shame on Hunt for not budging on this matter.

I wasn't trying to call you out on a mistake in identifying the ring type. You obviously know more about the subject than I ever will. My comments were meant more to give another's perspective on your approach, which I thought would be more helpful in the long run rather than a simple "you're right, he's wrong" or attaboy slap on the back. Sorry if they weren't taken as the constructive criticism they were intended to be.

[sports-rings]

I couldn't get Hunt Auctions to budge on this matter, so I contacted a friend at the NFL who works with Hunt in putting together the Superbowl auction.

Despite Hunt's intent not to change the description on this ring, I see the description has finally been properly updated to reflect the fact that this is not the same ring the players were awarded.

This has left a bad taste in my mouth and question if I will ever participate in another Hunt auction or consign a piece to them. What other items in their auctions are misrepresented and/or inaccurate?

I still can't understand why they would not make their descriptions completely clear and accurate. Other major sports-memorabilia auction houses do!

Thanks to the readers at net54basell.com for listening, and helping, and being a barometer when I question if I am doing the right thing.